NCclimber 0 #26 October 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteThen again, people could consider his explanation and easily see that it makes sense,... Why give Rush any consideration that he denies others? Because that puts you on the same moral/ethic level as you consider him to be. Are you okay with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #27 October 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThen again, people could consider his explanation and easily see that it makes sense,... Why give Rush any consideration that he denies others? Because that puts you on the same moral/ethic level as you consider him to be. Are you okay with that? No. I don't like that this nonsense is considered newsworthy by many. I think it's crap. I think his show is crap. I think the knockoff shows are crap. I think the lefts attempt at the same crap is crap, as do most "lefties" which is why they don't do well. Stooping to the Limbaugh level is a move in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned but if it just so happens that he occasionally gets his nosed rubbed in his own shit, I'm not likely to lose any sleep over it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #28 October 16, 2007 QuoteI just realized YOU called these men "false soldiers"! No one else has that I know of. Why would you ? Do you know something that you need to share with us? sar·casm (sär'kāz'əm) Pronunciation Key n. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule. Since you dont realize what it is when you see it I thought I would provide a dictionary entry for you. Lush Rimjob uses it as derision of those who do not agree with his CHAIR BOUND(to protect the boil on his ass) view of the war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #29 October 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThen again, people could consider his explanation and easily see that it makes sense,... Why give Rush any consideration that he denies others? Because that puts you on the same moral/ethic level as you consider him to be. Are you okay with that? No. I don't like that this nonsense is considered newsworthy by many. I think it's crap. I think his show is crap. I think the knockoff shows are crap. I think the lefts attempt at the same crap is crap, as do most "lefties" which is why they don't do well. Stooping to the Limbaugh level is a move in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned but if it just so happens that he occasionally gets his nosed rubbed in his own shit, I'm not likely to lose any sleep over it. If it was just the lefty talking heads pushing it, I doubt anyone would notice. But when our leaders in Congress start grandstanding - perpetuating a blatant lie - it takes this drama to a whole new level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #30 October 16, 2007 Quote If it was just the lefty talking heads pushing it, I doubt anyone would notice. But when our leaders in Congress start grandstanding - perpetuating a blatant lie - it takes this drama to a whole new level. "New" level? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 October 16, 2007 QuotePlay the ball, not the player. You just accused me last night of not liking Gore and fabricating reasons to oppose him. So I posted evidence that the Green movement opposes plenty of OTHER people for saying they are green while riding private jets. You attacked the player, not the ball. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 October 16, 2007 The sad thing is that these conditions are EXACTLY what one would expect. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymiles 3 #33 October 16, 2007 You posted the transcripts of Limbaugh’s explanation (revision of history) aired the following day. I read the original transcript in its entirety (Bill posted the relevant part) and saw the video for myself, and to anyone with a modicum intellectual integrity, there is no doubt that Limbaugh called Iraqi war veterans who oppose the war phony soldiers. Limbaugh was not talking about Jesse MacBeth as he claimed the following day. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #34 October 16, 2007 QuoteQuote If it was just the lefty talking heads pushing it, I doubt anyone would notice. But when our leaders in Congress start grandstanding - perpetuating a blatant lie - it takes this drama to a whole new level. "New" level? Yeah. Forty-one Democrat senators signed a letter, sent it to Limbaugh's boss, demanding he be officially scolded over something that none of them bothered to verify. Well, it was that or they knew they were perpetuating a lie. New low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #35 October 16, 2007 Quote Yeah. Forty-one Democrat senators signed a letter, sent it to Limbaugh's boss, demanding he be officially scolded over something that none of them bothered to verify. Well, it was that or they knew they were perpetuating a lie. New low. What lie? Limbaugh said what he said, not what he said he said. And, unless you expect our memories to "betrayus" you're going to be hard pressed to show that this Congress is any worse than its predecessors. By the way, that's not a defense. It's just a sad reality check. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #36 October 16, 2007 QuoteYou know, by using this title you either ententionally did not want to talk to the subject of the letter, or, exposed the fact that you have no idea of what the fake soldiers bs was about and so diverted a discussion of the letter. Either case is sad You don't come over too well when you're squirming and wriggling like that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #37 October 16, 2007 I was going to respond myself but when I came across this at www.blackfive.net, I thought it said it all! Does 12 Captains trump 7 82nd ABN NCOs? Posted By Uncle Jimbo Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles. As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out. What does Iraq look like on the ground? It's certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day. Since the 7 NCOs from the 82nd ABN writing in the NY Times didn't trigger the cut & run required we now get to hear from the dozen Captains, I assume followed by a pack of privates and ending with "two turtlenecks and a beer in a tree" I'll disclaim as usual, and the left will ignore that as usual, I believe these people have every right to voice their opinion. That is undisputed, the question is how much weight should their thoughts carry. Jules Crittenden points out what is likely the single biggest factor in evaluating them. Only one has been in Iraq since 2005, the other 11 all served very early in the war and obviously their experiences would have been largely negative. What would an OpEd from 12 officers currently serving in al Anbar, or Diyala sound like? We had very little success prior to this Spring and these officers got to live through our mistakes and see friends and comrades die for what seemed to them little progress. But the fact that this group includes no one who has been in country since the surge began makes it clearly an outdated viewpoint. I don't dispute that many of the difficulties they catalogue still present problems, but to completely discount the huge changes in the security situation, the Anbar Awakening, and even more important the recent alliances forged with Shiia sheiks is patently unfair. We have plenty of hard work left in Iraq, and to follow the advice of these 12 would ensure that the civil war they expect comes and with that the collapse of any influence we had in the region. Their plan? Oh wait they don't have one, beyond "Run!". There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition. We will be conducting a scaled withdrawal because our plans are coming to fruition and we are winning. And although there will be more US casualties before we win, those will reinforce victory, not be added to the rolls of the defeated. Already much of Basra is pacified after the British have withdrawn, Al Qaeda in Iraq is crippled and has no prospects of re-building, casualties country-wide are at their lowest in years and momentum is solidly in our favor. I know where these folks got their defeatism and it is sad that we have taken as long as we have to unscrew ourselves, but their voices sound eerily out of context and time. This OpEd should have been published last year. Now we fight a battle scarcely recognizable from this trip down bad memory lane. They end with a fair statement. America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice. I choose Victory!"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #38 October 16, 2007 QuoteYou posted the transcripts of Limbaugh’s explanation (revision of history) aired the following day. I read the original transcript in its entirety (Bill posted the relevant part) and saw the video for myself, and to anyone with a modicum intellectual integrity, there is no doubt that Limbaugh called Iraqi war veterans who oppose the war phony soldiers. Limbaugh was not talking about Jesse MacBeth as he claimed the following day. DITTO ( put that in so the followers could understand) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #39 October 16, 2007 QuoteAmerica, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice. I choose Victory! So when are YOU going back over to further that goal??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #40 October 16, 2007 QuoteYou posted the transcripts of Limbaugh’s explanation (revision of history) aired the following day. I read the original transcript in its entirety(Bill posted the relevant part) and saw the video for myself, and to anyone with a modicum intellectual integrity, there is no doubt that Limbaugh called Iraqi war veterans who oppose the war phony soldiers. Limbaugh was not talking about Jesse MacBeth as he claimed the following day. Phil Got a link to that transcript? All of it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #41 October 16, 2007 Quote Quote Yeah. Forty-one Democrat senators signed a letter, sent it to Limbaugh's boss, demanding he be officially scolded over something that none of them bothered to verify. Well, it was that or they knew they were perpetuating a lie. New low. What lie? Limbaugh said what he said, not what he said he said. And, unless you expect our memories to "betrayus" you're going to be hard pressed to show that this Congress is any worse than its predecessors. By the way, that's not a defense. It's just a sad reality check. Selective reality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymiles 3 #42 October 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou posted the transcripts of Limbaugh’s explanation (revision of history) aired the following day. I read the original transcript in its entirety(Bill posted the relevant part) and saw the video for myself, and to anyone with a modicum intellectual integrity, there is no doubt that Limbaugh called Iraqi war veterans who oppose the war phony soldiers. Limbaugh was not talking about Jesse MacBeth as he claimed the following day. Phil Got a link to that transcript? All of it? It is all over the internet. There is a little web site called google.com. Please try it and look at more than one or two of the search results. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #43 October 16, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Yeah. Forty-one Democrat senators signed a letter, sent it to Limbaugh's boss, demanding he be officially scolded over something that none of them bothered to verify. Well, it was that or they knew they were perpetuating a lie. New low. What lie? Limbaugh said what he said, not what he said he said. And, unless you expect our memories to "betrayus" you're going to be hard pressed to show that this Congress is any worse than its predecessors. By the way, that's not a defense. It's just a sad reality check. Selective reality. Maybe there is indeed some selectivity involved. I don't recall so much hub bub over the resolution noting the importance of NASCAR or the motion to honor marshmallow peeps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #44 October 16, 2007 QuoteI was going to respond myself but when I came across this at www.blackfive.net, I thought it said it all! Does 12 Captains trump 7 82nd ABN NCOs? Posted By Uncle Jimbo Funny, I know really well an NCO in the 82nd who just got out, and his opinion is QUITE different from the article you cited.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #45 October 16, 2007 The Commandant of the US Marine Corps was on TV last night, and he said he is very concerned that the Iraq war has prevented what he considers proper training for marine amphibious operations. He said there is now one complete cycle of new marine officers who have never been to sea. Of course, he could be faking.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #46 October 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou posted the transcripts of Limbaugh’s explanation (revision of history) aired the following day. I read the original transcript in its entirety(Bill posted the relevant part) and saw the video for myself, and to anyone with a modicum intellectual integrity, there is no doubt that Limbaugh called Iraqi war veterans who oppose the war phony soldiers. Limbaugh was not talking about Jesse MacBeth as he claimed the following day. Phil Got a link to that transcript? All of it? It is all over the internet. There is a little web site called google.com. Please try it and look at more than one or two of the search results. Phil I was wondering which transcript you read because the one I read clarified what was meant by "fake soldiers" a few minutes after the initial "offensive" remark was made. In other words, you seem to be mistaken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #47 October 16, 2007 Well, if the US Army was willing to take back a former 1LT (Infantry and Armor) from 1967-1970, I would be happy to go. When did you serve?"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #48 October 16, 2007 The Marine general is probably right...but when was the last time the USMC conducted an amphibious landing? You train for the war you are fighting, not for the one you might or might not fight at some other time. I was trained at Ft. Benning in 1967-68 to fight in RVN...small unit patrolling etc for a jungle/tropical environment. Of course, if we were fighting a war in Europe, the training would have been for naught. It didn't serve me particularly well in Korea. If you know you are fighting in Iraq, you train for that...not for an amphibious landing on Saipan. Geees, use your head."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #49 October 16, 2007 Wow! You mean someone has a different opinion. What an amazing concept. Hard to believe that different people can see things differently. I have opinions about liberals as, I would guess, you do as well....and they are probably quite different. Opinions are, as they say, like A-holes, everyone has one!"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #50 October 16, 2007 QuoteYou posted the transcripts of Limbaugh’s explanation (revision of history) aired the following day. I read the original transcript in its entirety (Bill posted the relevant part) and saw the video for myself, and to anyone with a modicum intellectual integrity, there is no doubt that Limbaugh called Iraqi war veterans who oppose the war phony soldiers. Limbaugh was not talking about Jesse MacBeth as he claimed the following day. Phil PURE BULL SHIT. The audio is available too. You are flat wrong"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)